I guess some things never change when it comes to a women’s word in regards to Chuck Grassley’s personal opinion.
“Well, maybe it is more of a comment than a question. The lawyers on the committee refer you to you folks as corroborating witnesses, and I guess, as I understand it, you are supposed to confirm what Professor Hill has alleged about Judge Thomas. There is no doubt in my mind that you folks are telling the truth, so I don’t raise any fault with that, that you are telling us what Professor Hill told you. But it seems to me that, in this role, you do not confirm any sexual harassment by Judge Thomas of Professor Hill. Of course, you couldn’t give any details about what Professor Hill says happened to her, because she didn’t give you any of these details.
I have sat here and listened to you, I haven’t heard of any details, so it would be very helpful to us if you could provide confirmation of details that she discussed Friday. I also find it surprising that you didn’t really offer any advice to her, but Senator Simpson covered that point. It seems to me that someone as forthright and independent asProfessor Hill would have given some details if they really had them. It just doesn’t make sense that she simply told her friends or acquaintances that she was being harassed at work, and that’s it, that’s it. It just doesn’t seem to fit. I have one question, which does not follow up on that.
SenatorSpecter asked—and I guess I would ask everybody but Mr. Carrthis. Senator Specter asked if you would vote for Judge Thomas. I want to know if you want to see Judge Thomas on the Supreme Court.
And I would start with you, Judge Hoerchner”.
The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can: